Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Balaram Thr Lrs vs Jagdish Prasad Thr Lrs on 17 May, 2019
Author: Prakash Gupta
Bench: Prakash Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 139/2018
1. Balaram S/o Sh. Durgalal Jaitwal, B/c Mahajan, R/o
Barpada, Hindaun City, District Karauli Raj. (Deceased)
Thr LRs
1/1. Ishwarlal Jaitwal S/o Late Sh. Balaram Jaitwal, Aged
About 69 Years, B/c Mahajan R/o Jyoti Nagar, Hindaun
City, District Karauli Raj.
1/2. Jagdish Prasad Jaitwal S/o Late Sh. Balaram Jaitwal,,
Aged About 63 Years, (Department Of Forest
Employee),b/c Mahajan, R/o Barpada, Hindaun City,
District Karauli Raj.
1/3. Brahmanand Jaitwal S/o Late Sh. Balram Jaitwal, Aged
About 57 Years, (L.i.c. Of India Employee),b/c Mahajan,
R/o Sozat City, District Pali Raj.
1/4. Pooranchand Jaitwal S/o Late Sh. Balaram Jaitwal, Aged
About 53 Years, B/c Mahajan, R/o Barpada, Hindaun City,
District Karauli Raj.
1/5. Leela Devi D/o Late Sh. Balaram Jaitwal, Aged About 70
Years, W/o Late Sh. Girraj Prasad Goyal, B/c Mahajan, R/o
Nasiya Colony, Near Railway Fatak, Gangapur City, District
Sawai Madhopur Rajasthan.
1/6. Geeta Devi S/o Late Sh. Balaram Jaitwal, Aged About 61
Years, W/o Sh. Rameshwar Lal Gupta, B/c Mahajan, R/o
Guman Panta, Kota Raj.
1/7. Lazza Devi D/o Late Sh. Balaram Jaitwal D/o Late Sh.
Balaram Jaitwal, Aged About 50 Years, W/o Late Sh. Brij
Mohan Gupta, B/c Mahajan, R/o Barpada, Hindaun City,
District Karauli Raj.
2. Govind S/o Sh. Haricharan Lal Jaitwal, Aged About 45
Years, B/c Mahajan, R/o Barpada, Hindaun City, District
Karauli Raj. (Deceased)
2/1. Pista Devi W/o Alte Sh. Govind Prasad, Aged About 65
Years, B/c Mahajan, R/o Barpada, Hindaun City, District
Karauli Raj.
2/2. Lakhan Jaitwal S/o Late Sh. Govind Prasad, Aged About
38 Years, B/c Mahajan, R/o Barpada, Hindaun City,
District Karauli Raj.
(Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 11:03:21 AM)
(2 of 6) [CR-139/2018]
2/3. Vijay Alias Dabbu S/o Late Sh. Govind Prasad, Aged About
36 Years, B/c Mahajan, R/o Barpada, Hindaun City,
District Karauli Raj.
2/4. Subhash Alias Kukki S/o Late Sh. Govind Prasad, Aged
About 32 Years, B/c Mahajan, R/o Barpada, Hindaun City,
District Karauli Raj.
2/5. Shashi D/o Late Sh. Govind Prasad, Aged About 30 Years,
B/c Mahajan, R/o Barpada, Hindaun City, District Karauli
Raj.
3. Gopal S/o Sh. Haricharan Lal Jaitwal, Aged About 63
Years, B/c Mahajan,r /o Barpada, Hindaun City, District
Karauli Rajasthan
4. Rajendra S/o Sh. Haricharan Lal Jaitwal, Aged About 60
Years, B/c Mahajan R/o Barpada, Hindaun City, District
Karauli Raj.
5. Laxmi Devi D/o Sh. Haricharan Lal Jaitwal, Aged About 61
Years, B/c Mahajan, Varriya Wale, R/o Near Devi Store,
Naya Bajar, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur Raj.
6. Lata Devi D/o Sh. Haricharan Lal Jaitwal, Aged About 55
Years, W/o Sh. Rajulal, B/c Mahajan, Sewe Wale, R/o
Nahar Road, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur Raj.
7. Meena Devi D/o Sh. Haricharan Lal Jaitwal, Aged About 48
Years, B/c Mahajan, R/o Peeloda, Nahar Road, Gangapur
City, District Sawaimadhopur Rajasthan.
8. Archana Devi D/o Sh. Haricharan Lal Jaitwal, Aged About
44 Years, W/o Sh. Vishnu Kumar Gupta, Khaju Halwai Ke,
B/c Mahajan, R/o Saloda Road, Gangapur City, District
Sawai Madhopur Raj.
----Petitioners/Defendants/Tenants
Versus
1. Jagdish Prasad Thr LRs S/o Sh. Mangilal Alias Mungaram,
B/c Mahajan, R/o Hindaun City, District Karauli Raj.
(Deceased)
1/1. Smt. Dropati Devi W/o Late Sh. Jagdish Prasad, Aged
About 74 Years, B/c Mahajan, R/o Pathak Pada, Hindaun
City, District Karauli Raj.
1/2. Suresh Chand S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Prasad, Aged About
53 Years, B/c Mahajan, R/o Siyajiganj, Daulat Bhawan,
Near Rambai Mansion, Baroda.
(Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 11:03:21 AM)
(3 of 6) [CR-139/2018]
1/3. Pooran Chand S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 43
Years, B/c Mahajan, R/o Pathak Pada, Hindaun City,
District Karauli Raj.
1/4. Laxman Prasad S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Prasad, Aged About
38 Years, B/c Mahajan, R/o Pathak Pada, Hindaun City
District Karauli Raj.
1/5. Dinesh Chand S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 37
Years, B/c Mahajan, R/o Pathak Pada Hindaun City,
District Karauli Raj.
1/6. Ramesh Chand S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Prasad, Aged About
35 Years, B/c Mahajan, R/o Pathak Pada, Hindaun City,
District Karauli Raj.
1/7. Vishnu Chand S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 31
Years, B/c Mahajan, R/o Pathak Pada, Hindaun City,
District Karauli Raj.
1/8. Prahlad Kumar S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Prasad, Aged About
28 Years, B/c Mahajan, R/o Pathak Pada, Hindaun City,
District Karauli Raj.
1/9. Rakesh Kumar S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Prasad, Aged About
26 Years, B/c Mahajan R/o Pathak Pada, Hindaun City,
District Karauli Raj.
1/10. Maya Rani D/o Late Sh. Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 54
Years, W/o Sh. Chandra Prakash Jindal, B/c Mahajan, R/o
9 Barkat Nagar, Joshi Colony, Tonk Fatak, Jaipur
Rajasthan.
1/11. Sharda Rani D/o Late Sh. Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 41
Years, W/o Sh. Mukut Bihari Garg, B/c Mahajan, R/o Tulsi
Chabutara, Hanuman Gali, Chatta Bajar, Holi Gate,
Mathura.
1/12. Babita Rani D/o Late Sh. Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 33
Years, W/o Sh. Rambabu, B/c Mahajan, R/o Sundardas
Marg, Tel Mill, Dausa Raj.
2. Mus. Shanti W/o Late Sh. Moolchand, Aged About 37
Years, B/c Mahajan, R/o Pathak Pada, Hindaun City,
District Karauli Raj.
(Deceased)
3. Kailash Chand Goyal S/o Late Sh. Moolchand, Aged About
49 Years, B/c Mahajan, R/o Pathak, Pada, Hindaun City
District Karauli Raj.
4. Mahesh Chand Goyal S/o Late Sh. Moolchand, Aged About
(Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 11:03:21 AM)
(4 of 6) [CR-139/2018]
47 Years, B/c Mahajan, R/o Pathak Pada, Hindaun City,
District Karauli Raj.
5. Rajendra Kumar Goyal S/o Late Sh. Moolchand, Aged
About 45 Years, B/c Mahajan, R/o Pathak Pada, Hindaun
City, District Karauli Raj.
6. Govind Prasad Goyal S/o Late Sh. Moolchand, Aged About
39 Years, B/c Mahajan, R/o Phathak Pada, Hindaun City,
District Karauli Raj.
7. Ramesh Chand Goyal S/o Late Sh. Moolchand, Aged About
37 Years, B/c Mahajan, R/o Pathak Pada, Hindaun City,
District Karauli Raj.
8. Mus. Chanda D/o Late Sh. Moolchand, Aged About 63
Years, B/c Mahajan, R/o M-63, Grater Kailash, Part-First,
New Delhi.
9. Mus. Asha D/o Late Sh. Moolchand, Aged About 51 Years,
B/c Mahajan R/o F-221, Kamla Nagar, Agra.
10. Sunita D/o Late Sh. Moolchand, Aged About 42 Years,
W/o Sh. Manmohan, B/c Mahajan, R/o Near Sabji Mandi,
Bayana, District Bharatpur Raj.
11. Mus. Beena D/o Late Sh. Moolchand, Aged About 33
Years, W/o Sh. Devendra Kumar Agarwal, B/c Mahajan,
R/o 79/48, Shipra Path, Mansarover, Jaipur Rajasthan
----Respondents/Plaintiff/Landlords
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Kamwar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Pathak
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA
Judgment / Order
17/05/2019
The present revision petition has been filed under Section 115 CPC challenging the order dated 30.05.2018 passed by Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate No.1, Hindaun City whereby application under Order 7 Rule 11 was dismissed.
Brief facts given rise to this revision petition are that the petitioners-defendants submitted an application under Order 7 (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 11:03:21 AM) (5 of 6) [CR-139/2018] Rule 11 CPC wherein it is stated that the suit was filed by the plaintiff-landlords for eviction of the defendants by giving statutory notice under Section 106 and 107 of the Transfer of property Act, whereas in view of Section 18 of Rajasthan Court Act, 2001 suits relating to landlords and tenants with regard to tenancy rights are to be tried only by the Rent Tribunal, therefore, the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit.
The application was resisted by the plaintiff by filing detailed reply wherein they denied the averments made in the application.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned trial Court while passing the impugned order failed to consider the judgment dated 26.10.2017 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Reference No.1/2015: K. Ramnarayan Vs. Pokhraj, in which it was held that once the Rajasthan Control Act, 2001 was extended to the municipal areas, the civil Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute between a landlord and a tenant. Therefore, the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit and the same be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the non- petitioners-plaintiffs has submitted that the judgment passed in K. Ramnarayan (supra) was stayed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, the trial Court has jurisdiction to try the concern suit. It is also submitted that earlier also an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed by the petitioners-defendants and the same was dismissed by the trial Court. Therefore, the present application is barred by constrictive res-judicata. (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 11:03:21 AM)
(6 of 6) [CR-139/2018] After making aforesaid submissions, both the learned counsel have jointly agreed that the trial Court may kindly be directed that it shall not pass final judgment in the suit.
In view of the above, the trial Court is directed to proceed further but shall not pass final judgment in the suit pending before it till an order is passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in K. Ramnarayan's (supra) case.
The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
(PRAKASH GUPTA),J Mohit Rohila /59 (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 11:03:21 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)